Jump to content

Wikipedia:Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight/Removed/Archive 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Theory of Portuguese discovery of Australia[edit]

Nominated on 8th April 2006; needs 6 votes by 20 May 2006 to remain listed. Removed on 4 June 2006

Support: #√αʑʑρεř 04:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC) (removed by Donama; see discussion below)[reply]

  1. Donama 02:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC) because it interests me personally more than all the other candidates![reply]
  2. Bduke 03:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC) Good effort so far. Should go to FA.[reply]
  3. A Y Arktos\talk 07:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC) - an ideal candidate for collaboration to develop an article incoorporating a variety of views - authors tend to be polarised on the topic[reply]
  4. Colonel Tom 04:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Brisvegas 07:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • This is a highly interesting topic in Australian culture and many Aussies have been working very hard on it in the past week, - √αʑʑρεɾ 03:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Considering Jazzper's numerous bad faith edits including inventing a book and publisher which he quoted in this article, and his subsequent permanent block, his vote should probably be struck off here, much as I'd still like this proposal for collaboration to be selected. — Донама 11:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AWB Limited kickbacks scandal[edit]

Nominated on April 11 2006; needed 8 votes by June 6 2006 to remain listed. Pruned 18 June 2006 with 7 votes

Support:

  1. Ambi 06:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Donama 00:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC) but possibly with a different title - Ambi, you bet me to it suggesting this one.[reply]
  3. A Y Arktos\talk 02:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 05:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Xdenizen 00:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Scott Davis Talk 04:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Alphax τεχ 01:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • We effectively have no central coverage of this at all, apart from a short paragraph in AWB Limited. This really needs an article of its own, and a good one. I'm not too sure about the title, either - feel free to suggest an alternative.
  • There is a limited amount of info on his in the Oil-for-food Programme, which Oil-for-food scandal redirects to. Possibly call this article AWB Oil-for-food scandal or AWB Iraq kickbacks scandal or Oil for wheat scandal (after the section heading in the Oil-for-food article.[1] Either way it would be the "main article" linked from the short section on the topic in the Oil-for-food article. Donama 00:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a lot of information on the subject at the Cole Inquiry article -- CHANLORD [T]/[C] 00:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great, I was looking for this article (but spelling inquiry as enquiry)! Only thing is this article still doesn't cover everything. It's like Kevin Rudd was complaining on Lateline the other night, the frame of reference for the enquiry is purely to find out if criminal charges ought to be laid on any Aussie company, not to find out if MPs shirked their responsibilities or if the UN contract scrutineers screwed up. Since the idea that MPs and the UN did screw up have been suggested in numerous news articles, it would be ideal to summarise all these views and the facts we have at hand in a single article. Donama 01:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, and also mention the controversy with the fact that the government were the people that actually set that frame of reference and how many commentators have commented that it should be expanded. -- CHANLORD [T]/[C] 01:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • However this topic will spark contoversy as it the true outcomes still are not clear, √αʑʑρεɾ 05:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm of the opinion that this should be covered in the article on the Cole Inquiry.--cj | talk 06:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cj, you truly are the ears & eyes of Australia inside wikipedia, √αʑʑρεɾ 06:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cole Inquiry is like a subset of the whole, scandal, CJ. I agree it's important, but by virtue of it's legal restriction, the Cole inquriry can't be the whole story. Unfortunately it's Easter now so no one cares again, but doesn't stop the issue being historically significant and important for retrospective study. Donama 07:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Donama. Cole Inquiry gets us 80% there, the rest could be covered under an objective and bland title such as How the Australian Government mislead its citizens yet again and got away with it. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 05:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. Still, I'd prefer half an article on this than none... — Донама 01:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does anyone remember the 4 Corners two-parter about it a few weeks ago? Fascinating stuff. Alphax τεχ 01:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, but I only saw one of the parts. What needs mentioning is what that UN woman (think she is Canadian) said, and what the documentary said about her. Basically, she admitted fully that she made a mistake, but tried to explain just how unexpected it was that AWB would be implicated like this because of huge standing and reputation. — Donama 01:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Communications in Australia[edit]

Nominated on April 24 2006; needed 6 votes by June 5 2006 to remain listed. Pruned 2006-06-18 with 4 votes

Support:

  1. Chuq 04:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Scott Davis Talk 05:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Донама 01:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Brisvegas 12:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Began as an extract from the CIA World Factbook, but this could easily be cleaned up and expanded to include various internet access methods (dial-up/ADSL/wireless/cable/etc), controversies with the broadband industry in Australia, FTTN proposals (both Telstra's and the consortium) - and that is only within the internet access - there is also radio, TV and telephony. -- Chuq 04:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adelaide[edit]

Nominated on 26 April 2006; needs 8 votes by June 21 2006 to remain listed. Removed on June 25 2006.

Support:

  1. michael talk 12:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Scott Davis Talk 05:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --darkliight[πalk] 20:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jasrocks 10:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. cj | talk 10:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --alanis_grrrl 12:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • The closest capital city article to featured article status besides the already promoted Canberra. Only small but intensive editing is required to bolster this article to the standard. I know this is not a broad topic that encompasses or relates to all of Australia but it really wouldn't be bad for us Aussies to have another (easy) FA under our belt.
  • I don't consider ACOTF to be primarily about making FAs. I consider it to be about plugging holes in Australian topics that deserve decent articles, on topics that might otherwise be a bit daunting or boring for one person to take on. This article is not a hole. pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. So treat it as a set nomination with the daughter articles History of Adelaide, (Geography of Adelaide doesn't exist), Climate of Adelaide, Light's Vision, Transport in Adelaide. Or as a trigger to also improve the other capital cities. Possibly Michael raising the issue here will be enough that it never needs to be selected before becoming featured. --Scott Davis Talk 05:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't say I know much about Adelaide, but I'll help out as much as I can. --darkliight[πalk] 20:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe there should be a separate category for Australian article improvement drives (possibly on the same page). Also, the text at the top of the page talks about aiming for the new article to reach featured article status. If that's unrealistic, how about changing it to aiming for a good article? Andjam 03:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • She is that close; I've been leaving messages on its talk page expecting a response re getting her up to standard - I got nothing. It would be a complete and utter waste to just leave Adelaide to rot rather than just putting in that little bit more and getting her to FA. michael talk 04:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's already a good article. michael talk 04:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Andjam's comment that a separate "featured article workshop" or "article improvement drive" is needed to bring A-Class articles to FAC stage. The ACOTF is really meant to just fatten Australian coverage, not to serve as a concerted FAC drive. Still, I'd love to see a group-effort on Adelaide by any means. ;-) cj | talk 10:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bakhtiari deportation controversy (or similar)[edit]

Nominated on 7 May 2006; needs 6 votes by 18 June 2006 to remain listed. Removed on June 25 2006.

Support:

  1. pfctdayelise (translate?) 22:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. cj | talk 05:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ambi 06:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Донама 11:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. JROBBO 23:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • I was very surprised to find that we don't have an article to cover this very high profile asylum seeker case. Quite a detailed saga, what with the boys alleging they were put up to various things by their lawyers, and the whole camping out at the British embassy trying to claim protection there.

Storm Boy[edit]

Nominated on 24 May 2006; needs 4 votes by June 21 2006 to remain listed. Removed on June 25 2006.

Support:

  1. cj | talk 06:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Scott Davis Talk 14:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Longhair 11:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Portal:Australia/Anniversaries[edit]

Nominated on 25 May 2006; needs 4 votes by 22 June 2006 to remain listed. Removed on June 25 2006.

Support:

  1. A Y Arktos\talk 23:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

A Y Arktos\talk 23:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fightback![edit]

Nominated on 25 May 2006; needs 4 votes by 22 June 2006 to remain listed. Removed on June 25 2006.

Support:

  1. cj | talk 08:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Rebecca 09:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Grumpyyoungman01 02:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Another important, although unsuccessful, political campaign.--cj | talk 08:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boy Charlton[edit]

Nominated on May 3 2006; needs 8 votes by June 28 2006 to remain listed. Removed 29 June 2006.

Support:

  1. Ambi 04:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. cj | talk 04:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 04:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I@n ≡ talk 10:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Witty lama 11:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Stevioli 02:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Major hole in our coverage, and national swimming legend. Ambi 04:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone might like to read They called him Boy (ISBN 1741665582) in preparation.--cj | talk 04:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting that, I@n asked he about him this morning. I saw that book cj mentioned in the Adelaide Lending Library - it's a new arrival. Also, it is one of the last individual Australian Olympic swimming medallists on my list at User:Blnguyen/stuff3. I might just make a start.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 04:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bizarre coincidence. I was reading an olympic history book (name of which I don't recall) in my local libary on Monday evening. -- I@n ≡ talk 10:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • His name, and thus the article name, should be "Andrew Charlton" with "Boy Charlton" as a redirect. (JROBBO 12:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Mortein[edit]

Nominated on June 16 2006; needs 2 votes by June 30 2006 to remain listed. Archived 16 July 2006

Support:

  1. Andjam 12:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • After reading an article on flies in Australian Geographic, I was surprised to find that wikipedia didn't have an article on Mortein or flypaper (economics and military metaphors don't count). Andjam 12:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jennie George and Julia Irwin[edit]

Nominated on June 18 2006; needs 2 votes by July 1 2006 to remain listed. Archived 16 July 2006.

Support:

  1. Andjam 08:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Two MPs who are complaining about their wikipedia entries. The best way to response to such actions is to increase the amount of scrutiny they have. Also, the articles currently lack any citations. Andjam 08:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We've got a lot of important articles in the queue here, and by the time this (if accepted) actually got around to being ACOTF, it'd have long ceased to be a story. I think it'd be better to do this one as an impromptu collaboration right now - it doesn't really need the two weeks. I'll add it to my holiday list, but I won't be able to get to it until at least Thursday, so it'd be nice if some others would jump in. Rebecca 10:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larrikinism[edit]

Nominated on 18 June 2006; needs 4 votes by 16 July 2006 to remain listed. Archived 30 July 2006.

Support:

  1. Grumpyyoungman01 07:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. cj | talk 05:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • I think there is much capacity to write more about this subject, perhaps enough to easily make it three times its current size in the available time. Mateship can be onerous at times, Surfing is fun activity, but Australia would be nothing without a significant Larrikin influence.
  • I have formatted the article so it should now be clearer where the room for expansion lies. Grumpyyoungman01 10:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Kiernan[edit]

Nominated on June 27 2006; needs 4 votes by July 23 2006 to remain listed. Archived 30 July 2006.

Support:

  1. MyNameIsNotBob 11:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Killfest2 07:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Charles Kingsford Smith[edit]

Nominated on 6 July 2006; needs 2 votes by 20 July 2006 to remain listed. Archived 30 July 2006.

Support:

  1. Ian Page 11:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Maybe an ACOTF could cover not only Smithy, whose entry is disjointed and scant (totally omitting the epic "transferring-oil-from-the dead-engine" story, for example) but also Charles Ulm, P G Taylor, Stannage and others related who have no articles at all.


Military history of Australia during the colonial period[edit]

Nominated on July 7 2006; needs 6 votes by August 18 2006 to remain listed. Removed with 5 votes on 21 August 2006.

Support:

  1. Peta 05:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Scott Davis Talk 15:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Murphmeister 13:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Imperator Honorius 13:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Brisvegas 05:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Monarto, South Australia[edit]

Nominated on 21 August 2006; needs 2 votes by 4 September 2006 to remain listed. Removed 7 September 2006

Support:

  1. Scott Davis Talk 13:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: One of the red links in current Featured Article candidate Don Dunstan, a failed attempt/proposal to establish a new city instead of letting Adelaide sprawl. --Scott Davis Talk 13:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This one would very tricky to do without relying on archives laying dormant in the State Library. Detailed information in books and websites is almost non-existent. michael talk 14:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I hope you've already found the relevant sources :-) --Scott Davis Talk 14:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When I have the time, and after I've completed my current project, I will consider writing the Monarto article. It is no doubt a very interesting peice of South Australian history, and ties in directly with the stagnation of South Australian population and economic growth, and the subsequent abandonment of so many grand projects. michael talk 15:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Michael. I am willing to lend support to this nomination, being an ex-Adelaide resident myself and having an interest in the area, but alas, I know very little of the topic, and am unable to source any useful information to assist with edits deemed worthwhile. -- Longhair 14:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australian women's cricket team[edit]

Nominated on 27 August 2006; needs 4 votes by 16 October 2006 to remain listed.

"Generally considered the best women's team in the world." cf. Australian cricket team. Lots for everyone to do.

Support:

  1. pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jen Powell-Psmith 10:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Useful, but it's probably not the most notable women's sport article - the national netball and national women's basketball team articles are equally in need of assistance. Rebecca 23:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I share a birthday with the Don, so of course I have to support this one. Not an objective reasoning I admit.


Bernie Banton[edit]

Nominated on August 28 2006; needs 4 votes by October 16 2006 to remain listed.

Support:

  1. Rebecca 07:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. cj | talk 08:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Orbitalwow 06:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • I'm really surprised this guy doesn't have an article. He's the asbestos victims campaigner who led the fight against James Hardie, and there's so much stuff on him around that I really think we could make a good article out of this one. Rebecca 07:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure a decent little article could be written.--cj | talk 08:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect we're going about this the wrong way - shouldn't we first write about the saga about James Hardie and asbestos (currently only three paragraphs?), and then write about one of the protaganists? Andjam 08:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well he has an article now (more of a stub, really), I was also surprised that he didn't have an aricle beforehand. Orbitalwow 06:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pick 'n Pay Hypermarket[edit]

Nominated on September 2 2006; needs 2 votes by 16 September 2006 to remain listed. Removed 15 October 2006

Support:

Comments:

  • I'd argue against a concerted drive on this article at the expense of others. Put baldly, this retail effort is not as significant to Australian culture / history as is, almost at random here, Keith Greig or Salamanca Place. Minmi 10:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. There's nothing wrong with a retail article, but the ACOTF needs to have some strong Australian character, something unique or special, and this subject is severely lacking in that respect. --bainer (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eureka Prizes[edit]

Nominated on August 23 2006; needs 6 votes by 25 October 2006 to remain listed. Removed 29 October 2006

Support:

  1. Mdhowe 04:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Rebecca 00:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ZayZayEM 10:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. wild-gazelle 03:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Australia's top science awards. Didn't even have an article until a few minutes ago and what's there now was just lifted from their website (I assume it's public domain). --Mdhowe 04:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Never assume that. All text is copyrighted unless it is specifically stated otherwise. I have deleted the copyvio and rewritten a short intro.--Peta 03:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


1934 Centenary of Melbourne[edit]

Nominated on September 2 2006; needs 4 votes by 21 October 2006 to remain listed. Removed 29 October 2006

Support:

  1. I@n 14:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jeffklib 06:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • I was surprised that the 1934 celebrations weren't covered in WP yet. I understand that there were fairly substantial activities and public works undertaken to mark the event. Lots of PD photos avail. -- I@n 14:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phar Lap[edit]

Nominated on 23 October 2006; needs 2 votes by 6 November 2006 to remain listed.

Support:

  1. Canley 00:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Great potential, but the article only has one reference (about the origin of Phar Lap's name) and is surprisingly short. Also, there are a lot of tables which could be cleaned up or reformatted for readability. --Canley 00:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras[edit]

Nominated on September 11 2006; needs 6 votes by November 20 2006 to remain listed. Removed 26 November 2006 with 5 votes.

Support:

  1. Rebecca 10:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. cj | talk 11:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. User:Jen Powell-Psmith | Talk 11:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Shiftchange 03:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. riana_dzasta 05:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Was suggested on the talk page by Jen Powell-Psmith. We could do so much more with this one, and I'd be happy to jump in and do some of the work myself. Rebecca 10:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Rebecca - this page seems less developed than comparable pages of other international events so thought it was worth adding to the list. It would be fairly easy to improve on as there isn't much information there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jen Powell-Psmith (talk • contribs)


Taj El-Din Hilaly[edit]

Nominated on October 17 2006; needs 4 votes by November 14 2006 to remain listed. Removed on 26 November 2006 with 3 votes.

Support:

  1. Andjam 22:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Donama 00:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Golden Wattle talk 22:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Well, I suppose some would be seeking divine intervention... Andjam 12:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Roused a great controversy yesterday over his "uncovered meat is the problem not the cats" sermon. — Donama 00:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC) (Links: [2][3][4][5][6][7])[reply]

Eucalyptus[edit]

Nominated on 26 October 2006; needs 4 votes by 23 November 2006 to remain listed. Removed 26 November 2006 with 3 votes.

Support:

  1. Cas Liber 01:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. riana_dzasta 05:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Again, fairly developed article, shouldn't need much work to get to FA. Pretty obvious australian icon and there are vritually no plant FAs.Cas Liber 01:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • — Donama 08:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Anzac Legend[edit]

Nominated on 2 November 2006; needs 2 votes by 16 November 2006 to remain listed. Removed 26 November 208 with 1 vote.

Support:

  1. Grano*salis 07:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • An key Australian legend, centred around Australia's part in WWI, at Gallipoli and on the Western Front. Deserves an article! Grano*salis 07:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have ANZAC spirit. Is this proposal different enough not to be merged/changed to that article? --Scott Davis Talk 12:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should have separate articles on the Anzac legend and Anzac spirit. Anzac spirit could do with some work.--Golden Wattle talk 22:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Rove McManus[edit]

Nominated on November 7 2006; needs 2 votes by November 21 2006 to remain listed. Removed 26 November 2006 with 1 vote.

Support:

  1. lincalinca 05:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

  1. Shiftchange 13:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: As McManus is a Gold Logie winner and a focal point of many international celebrities and general publicity and attention, his page should be indicative of him and of his achievements, however many details that should be topical are simply footnotes presently, and many of these deserrve elaboration or expansion. In short, I'd love some help getting it there. I am happy to prune and keep things tidy. Generally that's what I do in general here in WikiPedia, however addition of content and notation and reference I don't believe to be one of my greater skills, and would love the enclave of attention that can be provided by (around) 150 other soldiers on my side.

McManus is an over-rated, not very funny or original, industry hack, undeserved of extra attention here at Wikipedia. There are far more important subjects to collaborate on. - Shiftchange 13:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As per the sectiion titled voting above, "Please add only support votes. Opposing votes will not affect the result." -- Longhair\talk 13:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drought in Australia[edit]

Nominated on 17 October 2006; needs 6 votes by 28 November 2006 to remain listed.

Support:

  1. Todd661 11:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 1nic 06:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Shiftchange 00:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Golden Wattle talk 22:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wai Hong 00:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I would like to see an article on the current drought in Australia. I have absolutley no idea what to call it and I invite anyone to change the possible name. Todd661 11:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It probably will deserve an article, but it seems almost too early to write it. What are the bounds? What could we say? pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found some references for droughts in Australia and merged what was on the drought page. - Shiftchange 13:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recently been referred to as a 1,000 year drought on the basis that it was the worst for 114 years on record - I owuld have thought there were more than 114 years of records but .... Defintiely worth putting in some effort to produce a referenced article.--Golden Wattle talk 22:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is an existing page for Water Crisis (Australia). I think this is a better title as it (potentially) covers both the current climate issues and water usage issues. --Oz lowman 00:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miles Franklin Award and related articles (authors and books)[edit]

Nominated on October 19 2006; needs 6 votes by November 30 2006 to remain listed.

A structured response to User:Jenny Sinclair's call to arms. If you ignore the list of winners, this amounts to an appalling stub for what is the biggest prize on Australia's literary calendar, is it not?

Support:

  1. pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Rebecca 02:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. cj | talk 02:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. riana_dzasta 05:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:


Geoffrey McSkimming[edit]

Nominated on November 8, 2006; needs 4 votes by December 6, 2006 to remain listed.

Support:

  1. — JeremyTalk 01:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Would be a good project. Sharkface217 23:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • I've stared at this article for ages and just don't know what to do about it. — JeremyTalk 01:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your signature is excessive.--cj | talk 07:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Triple J[edit]

Nominated on November 14 2006; needs 2 votes by November 28 2006 to remain listed.

Support:

  1. Chuq 03:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Already a very lengthy article; but until this morning there wasn't a single reference or source (apart from the Triple J site itself). A lot of the text is unsourced opinion. There are also many sub-articles that are either quite short or non-existent. -- Chuq 03:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burke and Wills expedition[edit]

Nominated on December 10 2006; needs 2 votes by December 24 2006 to remain listed.

Support:

  1. SauliH 14:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • The article has some detail but has room for expansion. Summaries of other expeditions that sought their party should be added or expanded. Nominated as a potentioal FA article. SauliH 14:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006-07 Australian bushfire season[edit]

Nominated on 11 December 2006; needs 2 votes by 25 December 2006 to remain listed.

Support:

  1. Golden Wattle talk 20:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • The article refers to some fires in September but nothing about the current events in Victoria ... It is somewhat embarrassing to have something so out of sync with the present; notwithstanding that this is not wikinews we should be somewhat current in our events or else the article should be deleted as being irrelevant. Unfortunately I cannot help much to clean it up at present. --Golden Wattle talk 20:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Photography in Australia[edit]

Nominated on 12 December 2006; needs 2 votes by 26 December 2006 to remain listed.

Support:

  1. Golden Wattle talk 21:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • At present the merest of stubs about the beginning - there is much more to add.--Golden Wattle talk 21:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Australian_Collaboration_of_the_Fortnight/Removed/Archive_2&oldid=1138375889"